Gates Funded Solar Geoengineering Causing Global Warming Effects Reply

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 18, 2012

Alarmist scientists at Harvard University have plans to spray thousands of tons of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the earth’s atmosphere to artificially cool the planet.

Over Fort Summer, New Mexico, this solar geoengineering seeks to replicate volcano effects, which shoot sulfates into the stratosphere by using synthetic sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight back out into space.

In May of this year, a study published in the journal Remote Sensing , co-author Dr. Roy Spencer reported that real data from NASA’s Terra Satellite showed that the earth is naturally expelling heat out into space without the assistance of geoengineering. This empirical data proves that the theories behind geoengineering are bogus and mask another agenda.

David Keith , investigator for the project and president and majority owner of the geoengineering corporation Carbon Engineering (of which gates is a major stakeholder), justifies this engineering of our natural biosphere by saying it is an inexpensive method of slowing down global warming effects. Keith disregards his peers who assert that this action will alter earth’s natural weather patterns while environmental groups decry that geoengineering nullifies their efforts to purport their campaigns to convince the public that man-made climate change is directly causational to human emissions of CO2.

Keith manages the million-dollar geoengineering research that is funded by Bill Gates and the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research. These monies come directly from Gates’ personal funds. Keith himself receives cash from Gates himself, although the amount is undisclosed.

Gates commissioned a previous study with the assistance of a US aerospace corporation who manufactures solar geoengineering technologies.

Gates and the Royal Society were behind the report entitled, Solar Radiation Management and the US Taskforce on Geoengineering which recommend research into how to manage solar radiation.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity states that they are actively using geoengineering to combat CO2 emissions.

The US government requested over @2 billion for geoengineering research while only spending $100 million of their grant monies.

Keith and his colleague James Anderson will release a balloon over 80,000 feet over New Mexico that will dump tens of hundreds of kilograms of particles to measure the impact of CO2 on the ozone’s chemistry. This data will assist them in creating the right size sulfate aerosols to release into the atmosphere at a later date.

And the justification for this experiment on our planet is that computer models say that it will be beneficial.

Keith hopes to alter the ozone layer by way of future assaults of sulfate aerosols. Keith explains: “The objective is not to alter the climate, but simply to probe the processes at a micro scale. The direct risk is very small.”

Keith simply disregards that he is causing the altering of our very biosphere under the guise of the hoax of man-made global warming.

Solar engineering will directly amplify specific areas of study as the have chosen sulfuric dust the mimics the emissions of volcanoes. An intended consequences of solar geoengineering is the whitening of our skies because of the nano particles being released to reflect sunlight. Sulfate aerosols cause whiter daytime skies and sunset to glow brighter.

Pat Mooney, executive director of the Canadian-based technology watchdog ETC Group, said: “Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions – potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people.

It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geoengineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict – given that the modeling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south.”

Geoengineering, solar radiation management , will cause drought from impeding rainfall by 15% in strategic areas in North America and Northern Eurasia, as well as more than 20% in central South America.

Hassan Mousavi , head of Iran’s cultural heritage and tourism organization, says that he is “suspicious about the drought in the southern part of the country” as a “soft war’ against Iran by Western governments.

Mousavi explains: “The world arrogance and colonist (term used by Iranian authorities to label the West) are influencing Iran’s climate conditions using technology… The drought is an acute issue and soft war is completely evident… This level of drought is not normal.”

Recent escalations of sand storms and extremely dry conditions across Iran have devastated cities. In Iraq, desertification has intensified within the last 2 decades.

In 2011, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated at the believed the US government was “causing drought” conditions in Iran and expounded that “European countries are using special equipment to force clouds to dump” their water on their continent.

In 2011, British geo-scientists experimented with a balloon-and-hosepipe device that would have water into the sky. The Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) was funded by the UK government; however their plans were cancelled because the public in the UK demanded that they stop their experiment. While NOGs controlled the scientists at SPICE and the project was revealed as a false flag attempt to seed the clouds to cause predetermined outcomes in weather patterns. If this experiment had been allowed to continue, there would have been future deployment of more geoengineering technology following the outcome of this beta-test.

Keith, claiming to oppose SPICE, said that the experiment would not have furthered solar geoengineering and effectiveness in controlling weather patterns.

Of course, Keith’s ties to the solar geoengineering industry and his cohort Gates have vested stakes in the use of such technologies. They are actively seeking to alter the very basic chemical elements of our atmosphere; changing it to be more sulfuric and toxic to all life on this planet.

Cliff Carnicom: Estimating Water Vapor Contrail Distance From A Jet Engine in Flight 4

3/22/2001 – Cliff Carnicom:   A model has been developed to estimate the distance behind the engines that a contrail, i.e., condensed trail of water vapor, is expected to form. The results of this model agree exceptionally well with a statement issued by the United States Air Force that “contrails become visible roughly about a wingspan distance behind the aircraft”.

There is now an abundance of photographic and video evidence that consistently and visibly demonstrates the repeated formation of aerosol trails in much closer proximity to the engines than that which is established by the Air Force, as well as that which is predicted from the model described below.

These trail formations are in direct contradiction to a statement of fact issued by the United States Air Force.  USAF Publication – “Contrail Facts  Page 13

The rate at which contrails dissipate is entirely dependent upon weather conditions and altitude. If the atmosphere is near (water vapor) saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.” 

This evaluation now adds to the multitude of studies which conclusively demonstrate that the emissions from these aerosol operations are not composed primarily of water vapor. This model is not intended to encompass all variables that may be in effect, but does represent a rational attempt to model the physics of contrail formation times involved. Any corrections to this study will be made as is appropriate. This model is in addition to that previously developed related to expected contrail dissipation times, as well as originating relative humidity studies at flight altitude.

The model is developed as follows:

Let us assume that the temperature of the exhaust emissions of the aircraft is approximately 1000 deg. C., which is an apparent reasonable estimate (see Principles of Jet Engine Operation). The model can easily be generalized to encompass any reasonable ranges in temperature that are expected within the combustion process and subsequent exhaust emissions. The model is not highly sensitive to expected changes in temperature at this level, and if a more accurate value becomes available, it will be used in the future.

Let us assume the temperature of the atmosphere at flight altitude, approximately 35,000 ft. MSL is -50 deg. C. Again, each variable within the model can be generalized as needed, and the sensitivity of the model to these changes can be evaluated.

The amount of heat extraction required to cool the exhaust vapor can be given as follows:

H = dH(ice) + dH(melting) + dH(water) + dH(vap) + dH(steam)

for the sake of initial example and simplicity, and to demonstrate numerical results, let us apply this to 1 gram of water:
-H = (1 gm) (.5 cal / (gm * K) ) ( 50 deg. K )

+ (1 gm) (80 cal / gm )

+ (1 gm) (1.0 cal / (gm * K) ) (100 deg. K )

+ (1 gm) ( 540 cal / gm )

+ (1 gm) ( .33 cal / gm ) * 900 deg. K)


H = -(25 + 80 + 100 + 540 + 300) cal. = -1045 cal. required to cool steam at 1000 deg. C. to 1 gm of ice at -50 deg. C.


1 calorie (cal) = 4.1868 Joules (J)


-1045 cal = -4375 J.

Next, to consider a realistic particle size for emissions from aircraft, the Max Planck Institute has stated that the average size of particles emitted from aircraft is approximately 30 to 200 microns in size. As a side note, the average particle size of cloud nuclei is stated by Vincent Schaefer, Atmosphere, to be from 0.2 to 0.3 microns. Let us assume an average size of 115 microns on each side of a cube particle.

Since 1 gm. of water = 1 cu. cm in volume, a cube particle size of 115 microns in dimension on each side has a volume of:

(115E-6)^3 meters, or 1.52E-12 cu. m.

Since 1 gm. of water has a volume of (1E-2)^3 meters, the volume of a gram of water is (1E-6) cu. m.

The ratio in volume of a particle of dimension 115 microns to a gram of water is:

1.52E-12 cu. m. / 1 E-6 cu. m



The amount of heat required to cool the 115 micron particle is therefore

(1.52E-6) (4375 J) = 6.654E-3 J. for a particle 115 microns thick and corresponding to a temperature change of 1050 deg. C. [note units are therefore: J / (m * K)]

Now evaluate the thermal conductivity of the medium in which the particle exists, i.e., air. From the REA Handbook of Mathematical, Scientific, and Engineering Formulas, Tables, Functions, Graphs, and Transforms, the thermal conductivity of air at – 50deg. C. is given as .012 Btu / (hr * ft * deg. F).

Converting this value to SI units,

.012 Btu / (hr * ft * deg F.) -> (1055 J / Btu) / ((3600sec/hr) * (.3048m/ft.) * ((5/9)deg. K / deg. F))

or the thermal conductivity of air at a temperature of -50 deg. C can be given as

.02075 J / (s * m * K)

Therefore the amount of time required to cool the particle from 1000 deg. C to -50 deg. C is given by:

(6.654E-3 J / (m * K)) / (.02075 J / (s * m * K)) = .321 seconds.

Now for an aircraft traveling at 500 mph, this translates to approx. 733 ft./sec.

Therefore, the particle evaluated will cool to the ambient temperature in approximately:

(733 ft./sec) * .321 sec = 235 feet behind the engines of the aircraft.

A Boeing 757 measures approximately 155 ft. in length. The distance from the rear of the engines to the tail of the aircraft is approximately 80 feet (scaled). Therefore the contrail is expected to form approximately (235 ft. – 80 ft.), or approximately 155 ft. behind the tail of the aircraft. The wingspan of a Boeing 757, being used as a representative example, is approximately 125 feet in width. The results of this model agree quite well (approx. 30 ft. coupled with the transition zone) therefore, with the expected physics and chemistry of water vapor as well as with the statement provided by the United States Air Force. The model will show itself to be sensitive to particle size. “Contrail” formation in front of, or immediately adjacent to the stabilizer region of the aircraft, is not to be expected either from the results of this model, or from that statement issued by the Air Force.

Significant deviations from these results as well as from the USAF statement, as they occur repeatedly in conjunction with the aerosol operations, are tangible evidence of non-water vapor emissions that are involved.

Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 22 2001